322 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 1(1): 322–325, 2014 322 doi: 10.14311/APP.2014.01.0322 Final Remarks Giulio Auriemma1,2 1Universiẗı¿œ degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza,Italy 2INFN Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy Corresponding author: Giulio.Auriemma@cern.ch This year we have to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the book “The structure of the scientific revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn that has been published in 1963.. In this book, the more influential science philosopher of the last century, changed the old view of the development of the natural sciences as a linear process accumulation of knowledge into a substantially discontinuous passage from one paradigm to a new one. Two drastic changes of paradigm occurred near the beginning of last centuries with the shift from New- ton’s absolute time to relativistic space-time and from Laplace determinism to quantum mechanics. Around the middle of the same century another crucial shift of paradigm was the introduction of Gauge Symmetries, that led to the formulation of the Standard Model of Electromagnetic, Weak and Strong interactions (SM for brief) [1], whose complete experimental verification has been given recently by LHC [2, 3]. The carriers of those three forces are spin-1 particles, namely the photon for the electromagnetic, the gluon for the strong and the W±,Z for the weak one. It is well known that the first two particles are massless, while the others, that were discovered at LEP. have large masses (∼ 80− 90 times the mass of the proton), which can explain the weakness of the corresponding interactions. Since the SM does not include gravity, there is no hint in it for the mass of the particles, that are put “by hand” in the Lagrangian. What is now usually called the “Higgs mechanism” [4, 5] is the possibility that the mass of particles, in partic- ular that of the weak bosons, could be originated by the coupling with a universal scalar field, which carri- ers would be a weakly interacting spin-0 particles very similar to the one recently observed at LHC. Nevertheless even a confirmed discovery of the Higgs would not be the end of the story, because thanks to As- tronomy and Cosmology, we have strong observational evidences for phenomena like - Inflation - Dark Matter - Dark Energy - Baryon asymmetry that are not understood in the framework of the mini- mal SM. This justify the diffuse opinion (hope?) that a lot of new physics remains to be discovered in the sky and laboratory. 1 Cosmological parameters The results presented by Rubiño-Martin [6] on behalf of the Planck collaboration is one of the highlights of this conference. The new measurement of the Hubble constant from the fit of the CMBR obtained from the Planck satellite 2013 data is H0 = (67.3± 1.2) km s−1 Mpc−1 is fully compatible with the previous value of 70 ± 2.2 published by WMAP collaboration. However the central value of H0 is changed by non-negligible fac- tor (-4%) that indicates that the age of the Universe is effectively t0 = (13.82± 0.12) Gy, about 100 million longer then the previous estimate from WMAP. Inci- dentally that caused a funny “communication” problem with the media, because it was public ally announced on being the “Universe older then the Big Bang”. Figure 1: Reproduced from Ref. [6] The tension of the H0 value between HST key project (Cepheid+SNe Ia) and the CMBR anisotropy fit, shown in fig. 1, that was marginal (−1.2σ) with 322 http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/APP.2014.01.0322 Final Remarks WMAP, is now at a level of −2.5σ with the new Planck data. Not a suspicious level yet, but close to become interesting. Table 1: Universe composition from CMBR Before Planck After Planck Dark Energy 72.8% 68.3%(−4.5% ⇓) Dark Matter 22.7% 26.8%(+4.1% ⇑) Ordinary Matter 4.5% 4.9%(+0.4% ') Total 100% 100% A similar situation is observed in the determination of the ΛCDM composition breakdown as shown in ta- ble 1. The uncertainty on the fractions is estimated by the Planck collaboration to be about ±3% [7]. But it should be also stressed that this fraction are obtained with a multivariate fit over a constrained domain, in which correlations play an essential role. Therefore the fit error given independently for each of the variables could be strongly underestimated. Generally speaking a reliable error on the determination of each parameter should be obtained using the full covariance matrix of the fit, if definite positive. 2 Dark Energy Nino Panagia [8], presenting the most recent results of the Hubble Supernovae Cosmology Project (SCP), strongly stressed that the ΛCDM model with ΩΛ = 0.729 ± 0.014 indicating a present Universe dominated by the mysterious dark energy, are all based on the as- sumption that the explosive properties of the SNe Ia do not depend from redshift, up to z ' 1.4. Both the SCP and ground based telescope surveys of light curves and spectroscopic distributions of hundreds of super- novae, consistently found that the supernovae around z ≈ 0.5 appear to be ≈ 0.3 mag dimmer then expected from a flat Universe with ΩΛ = 0. What if a cosmi- cal conspiracy made the SNe at redshift ≈ 0.5 intrin- sically dimmer? As predictable this pebble thrown in the placid pool (near Stockholm) started a heated dis- cussion. Many in the audience supported the argument that the good fit of distance modulus vs. redshift curve [9] and of the TT spectrum of CMB fluctuations. In the discussion following the presentation of his paper, Nino questioned from a philosophical point of view that a successful fit is not to be taken as a definitive proof of validity for a theory. His point is absolutely correct, but Popper would object that a scientific theory can be falsified, not affirmed. Therefore we can exclude theo- ries that do not fit the data, but not viceversa. On the same ground I think that would be very hard to fit the Planck data with ΩΛ = 0. Harmes [10] has presented an interesting paper on a possible identification of the dark energy with soli- tonic primordial gravitational waves in the framework of Quantum Gravity with one warped extradimension, similar to the Russel Saunders one. Beside the specific model presented in that talk, that may explain both strength and time evolution observed by Planck [11], it has been speculated that dark energy could be the present manifestation of long lasting relics, with life- time much larger then the Hubble time, produced in the Planck era (tU . 5 × 10−44 s) by quantum gravity effects. 3 Dark Matter Astrophysical evidence for dark matter is now over- whelming. In a recent paper Bahcall and Kuilier [12] tracing the mass-to-light ratio with dynamical and lens- ing methods, show that this ratio M/L � 1 is nearly constant for scales from 350h.1 kpc up to 22h−1 Mpc, while the fraction of the stellar mass over the total mass remains of the order of few percent over all scales and environments. It worth noticing that quantita- tively the observed mass-to-light ratio on large scales gives an estimate of the mass density of the universe Ωm = 0.26 ± 0.02, slightly smaller (≈ 1.5σ) then the Planck value [6]. After the discovery of the Higgs particle, dark mat- ter is considered to be the most compelling evidence for new physics [13, 14]. Particle theory offers several type of objects that could play the role of observed dark matter, as for example axions and Majorana neutrinos, but excellent theoretical candidates are the supersym- metric neutral partners of the SM particles. LHC has definitively the possibility of discovering these particles if their mass is in the TeV range. However, as I said in my talk, there is a fruitful confrontation among astro- nomical observatories and accelerators but not a com- petition, because astronomy cannot demonstrate that WIMP’s are supersymmetrical particles and accelera- tors cannot prove that a certain kind of particle really is the dark matter. Several talks have described the status of the search for WIMP annihilation signal in γ-rays survey. In par- ticular Morselli [15] presented on behalf of the Fermi- LAT collaboration several interesting results both on the diffuse component and of the GC region. At present we have some indications that the allowed mass scale for WIMP as well as the one of the SUSY neutralino at accelerators is to be found above several hundreds of GeVs. 4 UHE Neutrinos (?) The detection of neutral particles in the km3 detector IceCube [16] in Antarctica with an energy release ≥ 50 323 Giulio Auriemma TeV is something waited since a long time. The study of a Deep Underwater Muon And Neutrino Detector (DUMAND) in the Pacific Ocean, off the shore of the island of Hawaii, USA, started in the late ’70s [17]. But unfortunately after many years of R&D the project was interrupted in 1996, after the decision of the DOE Sci- ence Committee of not funding its deployment. In the meanwhile many other projects were initiated in many parts of the world, and often the collaborations have presented progress reports to the Vulcano conferences. The IceCube collaboration has announced last April the detection of two contained showers with an energy estimated from the total number of photo-electrons & 1 PeV. It is worth noticing that this energy estimate is based upon the assumption that all the light is emit- ted in the electromagnetic cascade. The total num- ber of events (28) detected until now by the detec- tor [18] seems to give the first clear indication of non- geophysical and extra-solar origin neutrinos. 1. Fargion[19] has proposed in his talk some intrigu- ing possible mechanism originating these events, that could be tested in the future, when a larger number of events will be hopefully detected. It is however to be stressed that these events are re- ally exceptional under many aspects. If they are true neutrinos the c.m.s energy of their interaction: √ s = √ 2mNEν = 316− 1400 GeV�MZ is order of magnitudes larger than any neutrino-nucleon interaction observed in laboratory until now. It has been proposed in the past [20, 21, 22] that different kind of new physics could enhance substantially in this en- ergy range. Moreover the detected showers could have been originated not by neutrinos but by new physics messenger, such as for example SUSY particles. Acknowledgments I am sure to interpret the feelings of all the participants to this very successful meeting thanking - the scientific committee for having assembled such an interesting program; - all the speakers for their efforts in communicating re- sults and ideas; - Daniela and Francesco for the precious help given to run smoothly the meeting; - Valentina, Lisa, Flavia and Alessandro for the good music and readings, that gave us a moment of true ... “felicitas” - the weather in Mondello not making us to regret of being segregated inside the lecture room; - and finally Franco ... everybody knows why! References [1] G. Altarelli, Standard model of particle physics, in: J.-P. Francoise, G. L. Naber, , T. S. Tsun (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, Academic Press, Oxford, 2006, pp. 32-38. arXiv:hep-ph/ 0510281. [2] G. Aad, et al., Observation of a new parti- cle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 1-29. arXiv:1207.7214 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 [3] S. Chatrchyan, et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61. arXiv:1207.7235. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 [4] P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless parti- cles and gauge fields, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132– 133. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 [5] F. Englert, R. Brout, Broken symme- try and the mass of gauge vector mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (9) (1964) 321–323. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321 [6] J. Rubiño-Martin, Planck results : A review, in: these proceedings, 2013. [7] P. Ade, et al., Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmo- logical parameters, arXiv:1303.5076. [8] N. Panagia, The Hubble Space Telescope Cluster Supernova Survey, in: these proceedings, 2013. [9] N. Suzuki, et al., The Hubble Space Telescope Cluster Supernova Survey. V., Astroph. J. 746 (2012) 85. arXiv:1105.3470, [10] B. Harmes, Gravitational waves and dark energy, in: theese proceedings, 2013. [11] P. L. Biermann, B. C. Harms, Can dark energy be gravitational waves? arXiv:1305.0498. [12] N. A. Bahcall, A. Kulier, Tracing Mass and Light in the Universe: Where is the Dark Matter?, Mon. Note R. Astron. Soc. in press. arXiv:1310.0022. [13] G. Altarelli, The Higgs: so simple yet so un- natural, in: Talk given at the Nobel Symposium on LHC results, Krusenberg, Sweden, 3-17 May,, 2013. arXiv:1308.0545. 324 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0510281 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0510281 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076 http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3470 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0498 http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.0022 http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0545 Final Remarks [14] L. Bergstrom, Cosmology and the Dark Matter Frontier, in: Invited talk at the Nobel Symposium on LHC Physics, Krusenberg, Sweden, May 13-17,, 2013. arXiv:1309.7267. [15] A. Morselli, Last results from the Fermi-LAT Gamma-Ray Telescope, in: these proceedings, 2013. [16] M. Aartsen, et al., First observation of PeV-energy neutrinos with IceCube, Physi- cal Review Letters 111 (2) (2013) 021103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021103 [17] A. Roberts, R. Donaldson (Eds.), 1976 DUMAND Summer Workshop, 1977. [18] M. Spurio, Photonic, neutrino and particle as- tronomy as messenger of the universe, in: these proceedings, 2013. [19] D. Fargion, UHECR correlated TeV anisotropy connection with PeV neutrino shower events, in: this proceedings, 2013. [20] M. S. Carena, D. Choudhury, S. Lola, C. Quigg, Manifestations of R-parity violation in ultrahigh- energy neutrino interactions, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 095003. arXiv:hep-ph/9804380, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.095003 [21] M. Kachelriess, M. Plumacher, Ultrahigh- energy neutrino interactions and weak scale string theories, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 103006. arXiv:astro-ph/0005309. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103006 [22] R. Gandhi, Ultrahigh-energy neutrinos: A Review of theoretical and phenomeno- logical issues, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 91 (2001) 453–461. arXiv:hep-ph/0011176. doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(00)00975-0 Hope to meet You all at the Next Frascati Workshop 325 http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021103 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9804380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.095003 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0005309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103006 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0011176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(00)00975-0 Cosmological parameters Dark Energy Dark Matter UHE Neutrinos (?)